At the Intersolar Summit New Jersey 2014 in Edison on March 20, Lyle K. Rawlings, vice president of the Mid-Atlantic Solar Energy Industries Association (MSEIA), reeled off a long list of solar accomplishments that have taken place in New Jersey, from the invention of the first solar cell and the first thin-film solar cell to the first solar conference and the first solar cell production company.

Rawlings also announced a new opportunity for New Jersey to make solar history, which if achieved would be the crowning glory of that list: for New Jersey to produce 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050. The goal was established by NJ FREE (New Jersey For Renewable Energy and Efficiency), a broad-based coalition of environmental, industry, professional, civic and faith-based organizations, which Rawlings described as the largest state coalition ever assembled in support of an issue. “We are building an army,” he said, “and we won’t stop until it happens.”

While many don’t believe it will be possible to make the transition from fossil fuels to renewables by the end of the first half of the 21st century, the goal as eminently doable, he said. In order to reach 80 percent by 2050, it will be necessary to install an average of 425 megawatts per year through 2050, which is less than the 463 megawatts installed in New Jersey in 2012 alone. Moreover, the impetus toward renewable power is being propelled by a number of broader issues. PJM, the regional transmission organization (RTO) that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of 13 states, including New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, noted in a recent report that 20 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants serving the region are at high risk of retirement due to new emissions regulations and that the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in Lacey Township, the nation’s oldest, is slated for retirement at the end of 2019. These looming losses in generating capacity are forcing a decision on New Jersey’s energy future. “We are at a crossroads,” Rawlings said. “Something has to replace these sources of energy.” And, he noted, if we care about greenhouse gas emissions, it isn’t likely to be natural gas, which has a higher greenhouse gas footprint than originally thought due to the release of methane into the atmosphere from leaks that occur during the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) process. Another impetus, Rawlings said, has been the power outages caused by Hurricane Sandy, which highlighted the fragility of the grid and the need to develop highly distributed, uninterruptible sources of energy, which can be provided through the use of by solar in combination with battery storage.

In posing the question of whether the NJ FREE goal is feasible, Rawlings cited the examples of the Nordic countries, which as a group reached 63 percent renewable electricity in 2012, and Germany, whose goal is 80 percent renewable electricity by 2050 and which is already eight or nine years ahead of schedule, achieving 26 percent renewable electricity in the first half of 2012. At times, Germany is now getting as much as 43 percent of its power from renewable sources – and this without a strong solar resource (New Jersey’s solar resource is roughly 38 percent better than Germany’s), he said. Moreover, Germany is achieving this without the grid instability that is a risk with intermittent sources of power such as solar. Indeed, the reliability of Germany’s grid — even with its heavy dependence on intermittent sources of energy — far exceeds that of the United States. In 2011, German set a new record low for the System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), a commonly used reliability indicator. At below 15, it was the lowest in Europe and less than half as high as most other European countries. By contrast, the nationwide SAIDI in the United States for the same year was 244. Moreover, Germany achieved this through clever grid management practices, rather than major investments in infrastructure or storage, he noted.

Rawlings’ remarks were echoed by those of N.J. Assemblyman Upendra J. Chivukula, who represents New Jersey’s 17th District, in the closing remarks of the summit. Chivukula, who has been called New Jersey’s “Mr. Energy” for his role in crafting the innovative legislation that propelled New Jersey to second place in solar capacity, said: “There will always be naysayers out there, but we have to believe we can accomplish this. … There are no alternatives.”

A former award-winning journalist specializing in science and land use issues, Stefanie is focused on clients in the clean technology sector, representing the developer of a solar farm, developers of new PV technologies and clients in the carbon recycling and biofuels space.

She previously covered science, as well as real estate issues, for the daily newspapers in the Gannett New Jersey ...

Stephanie, you say that New Jersey's achievement of 80% renewable electricity by 2050 would be a "crowing glory", and I have just one question: why?

There's a disconnect between our real goal here - lower carbon emissions - and how we're going about it, which in the case of Germany has actually raised them. Of course "Lyle K. Rawlings" doesn't care - as long as he keeps the public believing his wares are helping the environment he's happy to keep selling them. But since our kids will have to deal with the consequences if his bold claims don't pan out, can we make his kids accountable for billions of wasted dollars in 2050? Or better yet - can we make solar tax credits tied to actual reductions in carbon emissions?

A simple, results-based compensation program would guarantee we're getting what we're paying for. To my knowledge, no one in the solar industry supports such a program, and I think we both know why.

People forget and/or disregard the purpose, the goal, and instead they buy into the orthodoxy being handed down to them by their annointed leaders.

If the right and annointed "environmentalist" or group says It's either Solar, or Wind, or It's no good, then many people immediately cling to that orthodoxy, that band-wagon. So, if Amorury Lovins says Hate Nuclear, then the cause is clear for them.

In this sense, I have likened Renewableism to a Religious or Political movement, where environmentalist faithfully and loyally follow the faiths and/or paths laid out for them by their annointed stand-ins for Priests and PAC leaders.

"... the question of whether the NJ FREE goal is feasible, Rawlings cited the examples of the Nordic countries, which as a group reached 63 percent renewable electricity in 2012"

I think we can safely discard that irrelevant datapoint, the Nordic countries are endowed with plentiful hydro power, which is dispatchable (i.e. it is the easiest renewable to utilize at high penetration). Furthermore, the current German renewable portfolio is about half biomass, which is not scalable, and has highly suspect sustainability.

Given that France, Sweden, and Switzerland all phased out nearly all fossil fuel from their electrical grids long ago (using a combination of hydro and nuclear power), and given the inadequacy of today's energy storage technology, the non-nuclear strategies adopted by Germany and NJ FREE can only be regarded as dangerous gambles on future breakthroughs (the alternative explanation is that they are merely distractions designed to prevent phase-out of fossil fuels).

The solar panels with cadmium in them must by law (I would assume) be recycled. These are the thin films that degrade faster than the other types. I believe that "regular" panels (silicon) presents no direct harm (except for broken glass).

Of course, PV only gets only a EROEI of 10 or less and its storage requirements further reduce that number considerably because a vast overbuild is necessary in order to build both the collection and storage infrastructure. Will humanity be patient enough to wait the many years it takes to use solar's own energy to exponentiate itself (I don't think so)?

I like to play around with solar and leds... "cause you can't put a nuclear reactor in a portable light".

But solar has more than that trivial purpose. It was required physics knowledge for humanity's pathway to more understanding and for better forms of energy such as nuclear.

However, (I agree with N Nadir) solar and wind are being used as a diversion for the fossil fuel industry because there is NO realistic way that solar and wind is going to power a planetary civilization past 30%!

In order to save the biosphere, we need to make laws demanding nuclear!

@Robert,"...NO realistic way that solar and wind is going to power a planetary civilization past 30%!"Check Denmark. Wind alone generated ~35% of their consumption last year. They plan to have 50% generated by wind turbines in 2020, and estimate that wind alone will then deliver >100% of all electricity needed in ~100days.

Furthermore, they target all electricity (100%) to be generated by renewable in 2050.

The Danes have the highest electricity prices in Europe, even worse than the disaster in Germany, that other fossil fuel waste dumping hellhole in Germany..

I know...I know...I know...

There are no poor people in Denmark, only German speaking people can understand why despite all the information on the internet about the electricity rates of Denmark and Germany, electricity in those dangerous natural gas dependent countries is actually free, and of course, that despite the fact that the Danish Energy Agency's web pages about how they love to drill, drill, drill! the North Sea to get gas for their German friends in case Putin gets mad at the Germans, Germany and Denmark are phasing out fossil fuels.

The failed, expensive and useless so called "renewable energy" industry is nothing more than a weak attempt to put lipstick on the fossil fuel pig.

As a citizen of New Jersey, I would personally appreciate it if people who know nothing at all about New Jersey, and who don't live here, would stop trying to import toxic heavy metal laced garbage like solar cells into this state. We already have a ground water problem here, and we don't need to make it any worse, thank you.

I no more want awful German energy policies exported here than I want Danish dangerous natural gas or oil exported here. We do have poor people in New Jersey, and the last thing we need when we consider their needs is people importing ridiculous ideas to triple their electricity prices to something like those observed in Denmark and Germany, two countries that ironically have begun to hate the science of Bohr and Heisenberg, Bethe and other Danish and German speaking scientists of the twentieth century, nuclear science.

I believe Denmark has hydropower (like lots of storage). If wind and solar gets cheaper, we WILL have a "fat duck" to deal with which requires VERY cheap storage and LOTS of it. Currently, the world's cheapest storage is in pumped hydro. Do you believe that it is possible that the world will "allow" for millions of such huge engineering projects? If not nuclear, then the world will need to cover between 1 and 2% of its land for solar. Do you think the enviro wacko's will even allow for this? No, they won't, because they don't want anything that distrupts a built in demand for fossil fuels at the large (global) scale.

@Robert,"... world will need to cover between 1 and 2% of its land for solar..." Even in Germany no need for that. Just do the math.

Take Sunpower X-series PV panels and cover 50% of all roofs with it (not the north-side). You will find that it is more than enough to produce all electricity consumed. So zero land use.

Far better power density than nuclear (power density defined as KWh produced per m² land used).And no GHG due to uranium mining, upgrading, etc.

German institutes did a number of scenario studies regarding storage and found that the extra costs for storage in a solar+wind environment are relative small. It would raise the electricity price ~€10/MWh.Nowadays even battery storage is becoming cheaper fast. Just look at all the E-bikes (a big success here in NL) that get cheaper and cheaper.

The world will need to cover between 1 and 2% for 10 billion people. It's up to YOU to prove that all that land is on the sunny side of all roofs. "All roofs" are not adequite generating facilities. We could argue, but I believe from experience that even the "best" roofs only get an average of 5 or 6 hours of good (like almost to max rating, 1,000 watt/sq m) sunlight. Even with my silly solar lights, I'm fighting tree shadows all day long. Nevertheless, why would I want to say no to cheap solar? I would be crazy to tell my neighbors to say no to solar (unless the subsidy gets out of hand). If I lived in an area with no tall trees, I would have it too (if it was cheap or if I was rich).

Nothing has a better power density than nuclear. Anyone who thinks otherwise must not understand the basics of nuclear science. You liken the little bit of uranium mining as a serious CO2 input. I highly doubt that little bit of fuel (even though it came from a much larger source of raw materials) could ever match the amount of emissions that are created during solar PV manufacture. I believe I have already linked this to you without a response? Still, PV ain't bad (and wind is just as good as nuclear)! So, yes, I could be doing the "solar sucks" thing because it's costly and requires MORE energy to make, but no, I realize that it can get better... and so can nuclear (remember the closed cycle, that would entail two orders of magnitude LESS emissions)!

"Nowadays even battery storage is becoming cheaper fast". Yes, I agree (even though it's still 5 times more expensive than molten salt).

I said it b4 and will say it again... We will need all of the above in order to save Earth from excess CO2. Speaking of batteries, I found this.

There is no law in most places requiring anyone to recycle the electronic waste represented by most cadmium products, be they solar cells, or be they batteries, or be they other types of electronic devices.

I did attend a lecture by David Eaglesham, who had recently at that time left First Solar, where he made a representation that his company would do this, but the assumption was that his company, then in financial trouble, would survive and have the resources to undertake this toxic enterprise..

To the extent right now that electronic waste is recycled, it is shipped overseas where poor people suffer the consequences of the exposure to metals, to aromatic organic halides used as flame retardants and insulators and a myriad of other compounds. No one who has studied the matter can make the claim that metals of any sort would ever achieve, in any case, 100% recycling.

Other handwaving claims, including one made by Eaglesham when I questioned him, is that cadmium telluride is insoluble. However it is well understood that CdTe quantum dots do have a serious toxicological problem in any case, particularly where acid rain is involved, in which case both the Cd(NO3)2 (or sulfate) and hydrogen telluride pathways are made available.

There are multitudes of papers written about these tragic facts published pretty much every day.

There are no realistic plans to deal with solar waste because solar gets a "green" bye mostly because people hear only what they want to hear, and refuse to learn what they should learn.

The model for all distributed energy systems is the automobile, which has ended up leaving - although we no longer pay attention to them - distributed pollutants in our air, in our water, on our land, and even in our flesh.

I may not live to see it myself, but I assure you that future generations will pay the consequences for our short sightedness and our tragic and wasteful investment in this technology.

Cars must be powered by non fossil means. From there, any toxicity issues would pale in comparison to the common hydrocarbon pollutions of today. Batteries would be recycled, for example. I really don't think people will accept displacing the car by use of the bus. And I think the landscape is too complicated for trains to do the trick. Which compels me to do a little wishful imaginating...

A dreamy wish of mine is the lightweight overhead "pod like" rail. It would be cheaper than trains but would require its infrastructure to be built just about everywhere roads are today. We would still need heavy duty trucks for contractors, etc, thus a doubling of infrastructure requirements and maintenance.

This suggests we build brand new cities based on an entiely different concept where "everything" is within walking and electric cart distance on many vertical levels... (another dream of mine where the pod like rail is built in). This just might be the "only way" in the long run of supporting a steady state population of 10 billion, as we can't continue to maintain and grow the old and inefficient suburban concept. Trains could then connect these.

Thinfilms are inefficient, toxic and strife with non abundant materials. I don't think they could ever compete for very long. They also don't last as long as good ole silicon. I believe silicon PV and molten salt storage (for lots of mirrors and steam engines) are harmless compared to hydrocarbon emissions.

But we would need nuclear power to make the large amounts of them needed to do any good at reducing excess CO2 since they require a huge chunk of fossil fueled energy to make. Thus my insistance that we develop nuclear!

If the wacko's get their way with destroying all hope for nuclear, the CSP/PV option entails about 1.5% of the Earth's land to power many billions at a decent standard. Problem is, the same wacko's won't allow for that, either. They must want poverty (and CO2 emissions) on a mass scale!

This looks like another pie-in-the-sky dream, with no thought given to either cost or intermittancy. And the numbers don't even add up.

First, it's laughable for Rawlings to cite Nordic countries 63% renewable generation, as the vast majority of that is hydro, of which New Jersey has none, and never will. What New Jersey has is wind. And Rawlings thinks the state can get to 80% wind by installing 425 MW per year for 36 years?

In Denmark (one of those Nordic countries Rawlins cites as a model) the average capacity factor for all grid-connected wind turbines is 29%. Which means the planned NJ wind capacity of 425x36=15300 MW would, when installed, produce 15.3x8760x29%=38,868 GWh of electricity per year. In a state which last year generated 64,838 GWh of electricity. In other words, 60%, not 80%.

And even that isn't realistic, since the wind blows when it wants to, and not when we want it to. And that creates big economic problems for wind, if market penetration gets as high as Rawlings wants it to. Because when the wind is blowing in New Jersey, it's probably also blowing in New York and Pennsylvania and Delaware, which means it gets pretty difficult to find a place to sell all the excess power you're generating at times of low demand. Which drives the wholesale price of electricity downward (even to zero or below in some cases), an economic disaster for all generators, including renewable generators. But when the wind *isn't* blowing in New Jersey, it's probably not blowing in New York or Pennsylvania or Delaware either, so how do the lights stay on?

Answer: NJ will import electricity from dispatchable sources, either fossil or nuclear, on windless days. And since fossil sources are killing the planet, the best hope for NJ is if it imports dispatchable nuclear power.

But if you need nuclear power to back up wind, you don't need wind in the first place. Because nuclear is just as cheap as wind in the long run (if not cheaper), just as safe, and it's more reliable.

I will fight this expensive and toxic plan as long as I live in this state.

I did see, laying in the street on my block, after hurricane Sandy, solar cells unwisely placed on telephone poles the year before. One unit lay there for several months, and the whole time I wondered what they were going to do with this piece of electronic trash.

Eventually someone took it away. It's probably in some local landfill, where it will be first of many such pieces of electronic waste to be leaching cadmium into our ground water for eternity. The rest of the expensive solar cells hanging on telephone polls around here will probably join that piece of junk in a little over two decades.

Happily, none of the many similar predictions about and by the solar industry over the last half a century have panned out, and we do see, finally, albeit too late, people grousing about the huge number of resources this ill advised affectation has soaked up for little reward.

All I can say though for now, although like the solar advocates who so freely dump responsibility for their wishful thinking on future generations, I almost certainly not live until 2050. It's just as well.

I wouldn't want to answer face to face for what my generation has done to the generation of that time.